Today's hi-fi 'press' consists of a modest number of
paper mags alongside a substantially larger quantity of web-mags. The
traditional paper-based mags (including HIFICRITIC)
all have their websites of course, often with associated forums and the like,
but considerably lower start-up costs have meant that numerous web-mags have
emerged that are owned and operated by individual journalists, including some
of our regular writers.

Although I try to make sure that the material supplied for
and used in HIFICRITIC is entirely exclusive in both writing and opinion,
instances of undesirable overlap have occurred and can breed suspicion on both
sides. However, it's also clearly ridiculous to ignore these web-mags and
pretend that their findings don't exist. I've therefore decided to invite
those contributors who run websites to contribute a 1 or 2 page feature that
summarises their web-oriented reviewing activities over the previous three
months (as we're a quarterly magazine).

This is bound to provide interesting copy for our readers,
yet will also help the webmag operators publicise their websites. It is, in my
opinion, a win-win situation, increasing the breadth of our coverage while
also directing attention towards the other writings of our regular
contributors.

Our four 'web-blogs' come from Andrew Everard, Malcolm
Steward, Jason Kennedy and Paul Rigby. The first three mentioned have all made
regular appearances in HIFICRITIC in
the past. However, Paul Rigby is a newcomer to our pages, though he does write
regularly in Hi-Fi World, as
well as putting his web material together. And his appearance did inspire some
talking points. Colloms didn't agree with a number of Rigby's opinions,
but I believe that people do have different priorities in hi-fi and music
reproduction, and I shouldn't impose anyone's personal preferences. The
more serious point was recently raised across a variety of topics in the
mainstream media, questioning the whole validity of blogs. Who polices the
internet? Nobody, so one can't trust its opinions, which might even go some
way towards validating the roles of editors and publishers.

There seems to be no avoiding the influence of the internet
on paper publications. It has now become clear that if a review is likely to
appear on the net at some point, it has to be easy to find via
a search engine. That in turn means that the name of the reviewed
component must effectively be the same as the title of the review. Snappy puns
and leftfield references are no longer acceptable, simply because search
engines don't have a sense of humour!

The publisher has asked me to pass on some bad news: to
whit, rising costs mean that we have to increase the price of HIFICRITIC
(modestly, and for the first time since the end of 2012).
Individual copies are now £17 (up from £15) while UK subscriptions will now
be £65 (rather than £60). (Overseas subs will increase pro
rata.) Martin Colloms has asked me to point out that his sound
quality scores for the various Naim components he reviewed in this issue have
been deliberately held over until the next issue, as the sound is continuing
to evolve.